craig

Couldnt agree more. The fun has been steadily taken out of the game to the extent that there now is none left. Is that as a result of people being more PC ? Absolutely. But it is also down to certain fans....... who revel in the tag of being the victimised and offended. I dont think that it is Rangers fans - on the whole we seem to be a very tolerant bunch and, in fact, I find it more amusing than anything to hear them singing some of their songs or throwing beach balls around. However, THEIR fans seem to hate us more than they love their own club and that is where much of the recent "offendedness" has come from. Rather than supporting their own team and "bigging them up" they would prefer to try to put us out of business. I am ranting..... but the fact remains that there is very little fun in the game anymore - and fans (of certain clubs....) as well as administrators and the governmental agencies need to take responsibility for that.

Not sure S_A. He and Davis both got booked though and miss the Poland game. Good news for us potentially, not for the Irish though.

hmmmm, but by using that same anaology the appropriate striker to play would be Miller who has played twice against Celtic in his 2nd stint and has scored twice, so a 100% strike rate. Shall I call WS to let him know your good news that Kenny Miller should be the preferred starter ? :devil:

You dont know Gribz very well do you ? :devil:

I would have thought you meant cleaner, given your references to Miller as a "crisp bag chaser"

Wind up taken But..... what you are saying is that if Kaka DID play for them then you wouldn't want him at Ibrox even if he played for no wage and there was no transfer fee. That would be criminal from a footballing perspective, surely ? Our club has plenty of under-achievers yet we would turn our back on one of the world's greats simply because he played for THEM ?!? I don't think I could ever agree that it is being PC. Maybe it is my naivete or I am missing something but I don't see it as being PC in wanting good players at our club, regardless of who that player is. I wasnt a fan of having Miller back at the club but, rather than who he played for in the past, it was my belief that he didnt improve us that made that decision. I altered my opinion after a couple of months as I thought he was playing well. He has been awful of late though and making me rethink my original stance. But, for me at least, it is all about ability and being able to play in the SPL. Bit what colours they have worn in the past. I don't see that as being PC, just wanting the best players possible at my club. I like the way you create some great debate though !!

And do a "Wattie" and play him at RB ? :fish:

Obviously your prerogative to feel that way MF. However, please dont suggest that I am in some way being PC. It is a straight forward solution for me. I am a football fan and my team is Rangers. That means, quite simply, I want the best players at my club. And if that means that he has previously played for them, then so be it. But please dont call it being politically correct when it simply isnt. If Kaka had played for them, had cost them 100 million, saw out his contract, wanted to sign for us for free and was still the best player in the world then I make absolutely no apology for wanting him at our club. The benefits to us would be endless. 1) we get the best player in the world 2) he has cost US nothing 3) he cost them 100 million and they recovered NOTHING in outgoing transfer fee. Kenny Miller is a world removed from Kaka but the premise remains for me that I want the best players at my club.

I would go with Naismith too. He can pull wide, is direct, creative and would be a handful for their static back line.

Each to their own but I personally dont give a shit who any of our players have previously played for, even THEM. If they have the ability and talent and application then I have no problem that they played for that lot. I am just not sure Miller has the above 3 traits (he has the application IMO though).

Yep, early start for me, looking forward to it (by early start I mean to get up so I can watch it on TV).

In a 4-4-2 I fail to see how ANY of our supporters would want Miller in there unless partnering Boyd. Basically in a 4-4-2 it should be Boyd plus A.N.Other. In a 4-5-1 I would agree that Boyd isnt our best option but I would also contend that in the 4-5-1 Lafferty would be the better option over Miller. I just don't get how people want Miller in that team when he has gone 9 full games without scoring. And then we complain that others such as BF get in the team when not performing well ?????? I thought Miller played well for the first 3 or 4 months of the season, creating a few of Boyd's goals and doing well running the channels. But it is not debatable that he has been AWFUL in the last couple of months. 4-4-2 - Boyd + A.N. Other 4-5-1 - Lafferty At least for me anyway.

Didnt see Vidic, but Giggs is STILL a cracking player. Poor defending to allow him twice to cut inside but no-one ever expects Giggs to hit it with his right.

To be fair Almunia had a good game. Clichy is the business. When he first came in I didnt think he would replace Cole. Changed days though, he is better than Cashley. Decent game and a draw was probably fair. Spurs had all the play but rarely tested Almunia

Yeah but I still think we wouldnt have qualified even had we got that draw against Italy.

Not so Ian, they drew 1-1 on November 22 at Tannadice, Utd scored in injury time to level it.

3-2 - Torres

2-2 - Kuyt

Poor keeping from Reina.

no it wont as they are getting beat now

2-1 to Pompey

14 mins left. I have only watched form 55 mins. Seems quite even. The equaliser was an indirect FK inside the box - Crouch had an AWFUL back pass to James, FK for a back pass. Aurelio scored the FK

1-1 now Jon

Nugent for Pompey, good finish, 1-0 Babel missed a sitter as well (though he did get flagged offside)

I know you blame others Gribz but when we get the Boyd debate it is one of the first things mentioned. It doesnt get mentioned about Adam & Burke et al and I suspect that is because it is much more obvious that they contributed little to the team (Adam did in his first season but we still didnt win the title). I agree we have too many average players but that is down to SDM, Bain and whomever signs the players. And, I guess, that is part of the point. The manager has to pick the best at his disposal and, looking at our squad, Boyd is the best goalscorer at our disposal and we need a goalscorer. I think that Boyd did indeed try to give Burley the middle finger and it was very noticeable at the outset. And yes, he also seems to have dipped a bit recently - but it also has to be said that this is not solely down to Boyd - the service from midfield has been poor for most of the season. In fact, it is quite astounding how many goals Boyd has scored already this season given the lack of creativity in our team. I saw you mentioning how good Rod Wallace was for us and then also mentioned that he had great service - can we honestly say Boyd has had great service since he signed for us ? I think it is very debatable that he has had even good service. Yet if Boyd doesnt score then he has had a stinker according to some fans and it is nothing to do with the creativity of others. Boyd somehow seems to get singled out when he doesnt score for not scoring yet when he does score he gets singled out because it is all he does. I find that Boyd is one of the very few players in our squad who is "damned if he does, damned if he doesnt" Sorry but I have to disagree. Sure McGregor was playing well last season but you are still GUESSING that he would have stopped one of Celtic's goals. That makes it just as easy to GUESS that Boyd would have got an equalising goal. You have a keeper playing very very well and you have a guy who was scoring very consistently - so it could be argued that by not playing Boyd it was as critical to our title chances as McGregor's injury. Would McGregor have saved a goal ? We dont know. Would Boyd have scored ? We dont know. I fail to see how one is "pretty much likely" whilst the other is a "guess" - the reality is BOTH are guesses. But you are using one to support your argument - I am trying to be even-handed in that both had a chance of being right. I was maybe a bit harsh in my "get over your theory" statement but I stand by the point I made. I dont think that people would have been proclaiming Boyd as a hero for scoring a penalty, it is something that any pro should be able to do. But, again, you are guessing as am I. And this is why Boyd is not to blame for those lost league titles, because of the downsizing and financial mismanagement. Not winning league titles doesnt make you a poor player. I am sure there have been some fantastic players play this game who never won a league title, does it make them a poor player ? No, of course not. It is a TEAM game and if the management dont have the right TEAM then, unless you are Maradona, you wont win things playing beside poor players. This is a poor example, but Ryan Giggs is a fantastic player but he never played at the WC finals. Was that because he was a poor player ? No. Was he part of the reason they didnt ? Probably not. It is probably down to the players playing beside him. Not for a minute am I putting Boyd in that class, all I am saying is that just because he hasnt won the league doesnt mean that 1) he is a poor player or 2) that it is his fault. I agree that Boyd shouldn't necessarily be first choice (I certainly dont go with Jon in believing Boyd should always play) - if he is playing poorly he should be dropped, and I believe that for any player. In fact, Ferguson should be dropped just now as he simply isnt playing well. It is Smith's fault that certain players dont have to perform as they know they will be 1st choice. I dont think I can agree about goals coming from all over the team either though. In looking at our strikers Novo would be our biggest goal threat aside from Boyd and he is now out for 6 weeks. Miller can score but is far too inconsistent and he, right now, deserves to be dropped more than Boyd does as he hasnt scored in 9 games and isnt playing well. Lafferty hasnt been given a chance but I think he looks quite assured if playing up front. Perhaps he should get games to see what he can do (looked decent up top on Wed night). Velicka may score goals and should perhaps get more game time but I am not convinced he should start ahead of Boyd. The problem though is far deeper than that. The problem is who will score goals from midfield ? Ferguson plays too deep these days to be a goal threat. Mendes scores some screamers but he too doesnt get forward often enough to be a constant goal threat. Fleck has only just started playing, looks like he could be a goal threat but as yet cant be judged here. Davis is the only one who looks like being a goal threat from midfield. And we may as well forget about our goal threat from the defence thanks to the very poor quality of set pieces from our team (this may change if Fleck plays as the boy can certainly hit quality set pieces).